Other one didn't work sorry if I ask again but I need this answer this is question is from my exam and I need to finish it today. The Assyrian Empire was the first to use the idea of smaller regional governments. Instead of the King trying to rule everyone from one place, he had lower government officials in smaller cities to enforce his laws and recruit soldiers for the army. Explain why this idea would be helpful for a large empire. What is one possible negative to this strategy?

Okay this is a lot so get ready.

Assyria began as a small trading community centered at the ancient city of Ashur and grew to become the greatest empire in the ancient world prior to the conquests of Alexander the Great and, after him, the Roman Empire. While the Assyrians' administrative skills were impressive, and they could be adept at diplomacy when necessary, these were not the means by which the empire grew to rule the ancient world from Egypt in the south, through the Levant and Mesopotamia, and over to Asia Minor; it was their skill in warfare.

The Assyrian war machine was the most efficient military force in the ancient world up until the fall of the empire in 612 BCE. The secret to its success was a professionally trained standing army, iron weapons, advanced engineering skills, effective tactics, and, most importantly, a complete ruthlessness which came to characterize the Assyrians to their neighbors and subjects and still attaches itself to the reputation of Assyria in the modern day. A phrase oft-repeated by Assyrian kings in their inscriptions regarding military conquests is "I destroyed, devastated, and burned with fire" those cities, towns, and regions which resisted Assyrian rule.

The Assyrian kings were not to be trifled with and their inscriptions vividly depict the fate which was certain for those who defied them. The historian Simon Anglim writes:

"The Assyrians created the world's first great army and the world's first great empire. This was held together by two factors: their superior abilities in siege warfare and their reliance on sheer, unadulterated terror. It was Assyrian policy always to demand that examples be made of those who resisted them; this included deportations of entire peoples and horrific physical punishments. One inscription from a temple in the city of Nimrod records the fate of the leaders of the city of Suru on the Euphrates River, who rebelled from, and were reconquered by, King Ashurbanipal:

I built a pillar at the city gate and I flayed all the chief men who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins; some I walled up inside the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes." Such punishments were not uncommon. Furthermore, inscriptions recording these vicious acts of retribution were displayed throughout the empire to serve as a warning. Yet this officially sanctioned cruelty seems to have had the opposite effect: though the Assyrians and their army were respected and feared, they were most of all hated and the subjects of their empire were in an almost constant state of rebellion. (185-186)

Since the subject states did try to break away from the empire whenever they felt they had a chance of success, a standing army was necessary to ensure the stability of the empire from enemies within and, as neighboring kingdoms like Urartu and Elam were often making incursions into Assyrian territory, a professional army was also required for national defense. These considerations, however, did not result in practical changes in the military until the rule of Tiglath Pileser III (745-727 BCE)."

Explanation:

try something like republic or democracy joined or something because its talking about a election party.

they could find out our specific needs.